Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jo Ellen Rodgers

Publications and source records attributed to Jo Ellen Rodgers.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare duration of mechanical ventilation for patients randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration vs. continuous infusions of propofol using protocols that include scheduled daily interruption of sedation. DESIGN: A randomized open-label trial enrolling patients from October 2001 to March 2004. SETTING: Medical intensive care units of two tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >48 hrs and who required > or =10 mg of lorazepam or a continuous infusion of a sedative to achieve adequate sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration or propofol by continuous infusion to maintain a Ramsay score of 2-3. Sedation was interrupted on a daily basis for both groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was median ventilator days. Secondary outcomes included 28-day ventilator-free survival, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Median ventilator days were significantly lower in the daily interruption propofol group compared with the intermittent bolus lorazepam group (5.8 vs. 8.4, p = .04). The difference was largest for hospital survivors (4.4 vs. 9.0, p = .006). There was a trend toward greater ventilator-free survival for patients in the daily interruption propofol group (median 18.5 days for propofol vs. 10.2 for lorazepam, p = .06). Hospital mortality was not different. CONCLUSIONS: For medical patients requiring >48 hrs of mechanical ventilation, sedation with propofol results in significantly fewer ventilator days compared with intermittent lorazepam when sedatives are interrupted daily.

Drug Administration Schedule↗

Nesiritide: harmful or harmless?

Nesiritide is the recombinant form of human B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP), and its amino acid sequence is identical to that of endogenous human BNP. Administration of nesiritide results in venous and arterial vasodilation, as well as enhanced diuresis. Given the many limitations of therapies previously available for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure, the anticipation was that nesiritide would offer a safer and more effective therapeutic option. Recently, two meta-analyses raised the question of safety with nesiritide therapy, specifically an increased risk of renal dysfunction and mortality. Although several studies generated information regarding the potential role of nesiritide in various settings, the questions raised by the meta-analyses are concerning. Our hope is that future clinical trials will address the concerns raised and provide a better understanding of the role of nesiritide in the management of acute decompensated heart failure. Until these data are available, nesiritide use should be limited.

Acute Disease↗